Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

This is crap to the infinite power. Why can't Abrams come up with an original story? Why does he need to plagiarize (oops, "re-imagine") what far better storytellers and artists have already done?

I think you're missing out on some pretty good Trek. But you have to be A) open-minded about the movie being different than previous Trek, which is actually not a bad thing, because I hate it when things get stale and the statu quo is untouchable, which is why Vulcan's destruction is such a good idea.

And B) Learn to live with the fact that movies have mistakes and inconsistencies. I mean, I'd like nothing more than all movies and books and video games to have perfect storytelling with no errors, but guess what ? Only reality's like that, and we're still not happy with it. So I enjoy it when movies are better scripted or the people involved make extra effort to get the details right, but I'm okay with movies that aren't perfect if they are entertaining.

Of course, then I nitpick because I like to do that, but it doesn't bother me as much as it used to.

And by the way, spoiling the entire movie in text form usually sounds a lot worse than the finished product.

FFS, I am sick and tired of never being allowed to criticize the Abrams crap without getting jumped on.

I am perfectly free to criticize what I see in trailers, clips, or whatever else gets posted online. There are some things that don't require seeing the whole damn movie to know I hate it.

I did eventually see the first Abrams movie. And I thought it was every bit as dumb as it looked like it would be. As for this... it's like redoing Planet of the Apes. There was nothing wrong with the original. As for Shakespeare... I do prefer my Shakespeare as traditional as possible, but Classic Star Trek did its nods to Shakespeare quite well.

Abrams doesn't appear to know how to do nods. He takes a sledgehammer and wrecking crew and fits the pieces back together haphazardly and with a distinct lack of respect for the original material.

I'm unsubscribing to this thread now, so don't bother flaming and trolling me. Just remember - there are probably aspects of Trek that I love and you don't. And you're just as entitled to think what I like is crap.

But if you're unwilling to have your views challenged, why post on a message board to begin with?

Challenged? Do you think this is some sort of game where we keep score of who wins and loses? A novel concept I come here on a discussion board... to discuss Star Trek.

It's a pity so many seem to be personally invested in trying to force others to adopt their opinions.

I think you misunderstand. I come here because I LIKE to see different viewpoints than my own. I want my views of Trek challenged. If we all thought the same way, there'd be little reason to come here.

Challenged? Do you think this is some sort of game where we keep score of who wins and loses? A novel concept I come here on a discussion board... to discuss Star Trek.

It's a pity so many seem to be personally invested in trying to force others to adopt their opinions.

Speaking of, why are you so emotional, here ? Again, we're just discussing a fictional show. No need to get excited. Timewalker's the one who felt attacked for no reason. I, personally, am quite happy that people have different opinions. Otherwise there'd be no progress.

But BillJ is right: you participate in discussions, your views will be disagreed with and your claims challenged. It's not a matter of winning (not for everyone, anyway), but about the free exchange of ideas.

I'm unsubscribing to this thread now, so don't bother flaming and trolling me. Just remember - there are probably aspects of Trek that I love and you don't. And you're just as entitled to think what I like is crap.

No one was flaming or trolling you but if you feel that's the case anywhere on the board please use the "notify moderator" button on the post in question. Don't accuse others of flaming or trolling and don't answer back in kind because that will invariably escalate the situation or derail the thread. That said, I hope you reconsider because Belz was just having a normal conversation with you.

__________________
"Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates." Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

Okay. Two things.
One: I find it amusing that JJ is taking flak for the only scene in the whole movie that I am at all interested in. It's not easy being the Dark Overlord, apparently.

Two: Well, in the spirit of looking for things of interest, rather than simply re-iterating my antipathy to the whole JJverse...What sort of aliens do we get in this new film? How many background aliens show up? Are they pretty much the same ones as in the first, or are there startling new make-ups on display?

(and, demmit, truth be told, I'm moderately interested in the Klingon scenes, but it's funnier to insist that only a barely clad Ms. Eve can rouse my interest. truth is hard.)

Okay. Two things.
One: I find it amusing that JJ is taking flak for the only scene in the whole movie that I am at all interested in. It's not easy being the Dark Overlord, apparently.

Two: Well, in the spirit of looking for things of interest, rather than simply re-iterating my antipathy to the whole JJverse...What sort of aliens do we get in this new film? How many background aliens show up? Are they pretty much the same ones as in the first, or are there startling new make-ups on display?

(and, demmit, truth be told, I'm moderately interested in the Klingon scenes, but it's funnier to insist that only a barely clad Ms. Eve can rouse my interest. truth is hard.)

Yeah, I think that's why Lindelof is talking about it now. Sorry, nothing against you, but that's how I feel. I'm happy to be wrong, though.

On the Klingons, well, they look different from any Klingons I've seen. That's all I can say. There's not much dialogue and they are hardly used.